Sandy Hook families win ruling against Alex Jones

[Spartanmack]

There's a YouTube clip of him giving a speech on a college campus.

I think it was UConn? not sure. but he was invited after some right-wing group invited Ben Shapiro; his speech was in response to that, and about how decent human beings should respond to hatemongers like Shapiro.

https://youtu.be/2rgNLvzDYTs

 

[Michchamp]

I read the first part of this link and it reminds me very much of the racial bias thread.

this part is later in the link, and IIRC, you had expressly made this point in that thread, regarding bias:

Shapiro plucks only the statistics that suggest race doesn?t matter, and pretends the statistics that suggest it does matter don?t exist. Nobody can trust him, because if he comes across a finding showing that incarceration rates more closely follow crime rates than racial demographics, you can bet it will appear in his next speech.

But if someone shows that a white man with a criminal record is far more likely to receive a job callback than a black man without a criminal record, you?ll never hear it mentioned. [note: the article links to this actual study]

It would be perfectly reasonable for Shapiro to critique these findings; sociologists critique each other all the time.

Instead, he selects only the parts of reality that please him.​

 

[Spartanmack]

none of those other tweets disavow the racism inherent in the first one, nor does the "context" provided, which the article I posted expressly linked to Shapiro's actual tweets. And of course he's said many more awful things about Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians, and the article I linked to included actual quotes of his, in context, or his original tweets, so you can see he's been consistently racist on this point.

The rest of your post is just personal insults, and doesn't refute anything I wrote with substance; I don't see any reason to respond.

if he has said many more awful things then why is this twwet takne out of context, whether you understand that or not, the only tweet used as an example?

saying you said something stupid isnt a personal insult. its interesting that you accuse an argument supported by multiple quotes disproving your false, substanceless accusations of hateed and bigotry of lacking substance. youve posted no substantive argument to make your case and you dismiss proof showing your wrong as lacking substance.

 

[Michchamp]

https://youtu.be/2rgNLvzDYTs

I don't need to watch a selectively-edited video to know he's a racist and a hatemonger; I read his actual words.

 

[Spartanmack]

this part is later in the link, and IIRC, you had expressly made this point in that thread, regarding bias:

Shapiro plucks only the statistics that suggest race doesn’t matter, and pretends the statistics that suggest it does matter don’t exist. Nobody can trust him, because if he comes across a finding showing that incarceration rates more closely follow crime rates than racial demographics, you can bet it will appear in his next speech.

But if someone shows that a white man with a criminal record is far more likely to receive a job callback than a black man without a criminal record, you’ll never hear it mentioned. [note: the article links to this actual study]

It would be perfectly reasonable for Shapiro to critique these findings; sociologists critique each other all the time.

Instead, he selects only the parts of reality that please him.​

thats simply not true. he fully acknowledges the existence of bias and racism. the fact that black candidates get fewer call backs for jobs isnt proof that the criminal justice system is systemically discriminating against minorities. they're separate issues and you wont be able to find a case where shapiro defends or explains away the bias issue - he doesn't do it. you just need to believe he does so you can dismiss the other argument offhand.

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't need to watch a selectively-edited video to know he's a racist and a hatemonger; I read his actual words.

LOL, you've just been shown you're literally reading selectively edited words from his twitter feed and taking them out of context. man if I had a nickel for every time you stepped in a pile of your own shit here, I wouldn't be all that rich but your shoes would be a hot mess.

do you have any basis for your claim the video, where Shapiro explains his position on race and culture was indeed edited? you can find the full version of virtually all his speeches and q&a sessions. but you dont need to do that because you read a selectively edited synopsis of his tweets.

 

[Gulo Blue]

thats simply not true. he fully acknowledges the existence of bias and racism.

When you respond to a question about wealth differences with "it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture" you are denying that bias and racism have an impact on wealth.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfGciFH7BuI

 

[tinselwolverine]

I’ve vaguely remember those Zoe Tur - Ben Shapiro thing on the Dr. Drew Pinsky show,or at least hearing about it afterward.

I think Pinsky’s Love Lines partner Mike Catherwood was on the set, and later Ann Coulter was talking shit about him for not getting into the whole kerfuffle.

 

[Michchamp]

LOL, you've just been shown you're literally reading selectively edited words from his twitter feed and taking them out of context. man if I had a nickel for every time you stepped in a pile of your own shit here, I wouldn't be all that rich but your shoes would be a hot mess.

do you have any basis for your claim the video, where Shapiro explains his position on race and culture was indeed edited? you can find the full version of virtually all his speeches and q&a sessions. but you dont need to do that because you read a selectively edited synopsis of his tweets.

The article I cited links to his actual tweets and articles on various websites written by him. I read those. Nothing is "selectively edited" there. saying it over and over again doesn't make it so.

LOL.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I?ve vaguely remember those Zoe Tur - Ben Shapiro thing on the Dr. Drew Pinsky show,or at least hearing about it afterward.

I think Pinsky?s Love Lines partner Mike Catherwood was on the set, and later Ann Coulter was talking shit about him for not getting into the whole kerfuffle.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YgQy70_LPS4

 

[Spartanmack]

The article I cited links to his actual tweets and articles on various websites written by him. I read those. Nothing is "selectively edited" there. saying it over and over again doesn't make it so.

LOL.

it absolutely is selectively edited - it ignores the tweets that provide the context which proves he's not talking about all arabs and instead he's referring to Hamas and the PA, and the Palestinians who overwhelming elected those groups which are recognized terror groups. That's not all Arabs and it's not racist or hatemongering. Ignoring those tweets is selective editing. Saying it's not over and over again doesn't make it so.


Still waiting for you to make the case that the video is selectively edited. This is the same tactic you pulled with the PP videos - call them edited, doctored, disregard the fact that the entire videos were also posted online, and then you don't have to defend people admitting they're murdering babies and selling their flesh for profit. In this instance, you don't have to defend your support for murderous terrorist groups and your anti-Semitic bigotry. Just call the folks who point out what human garbage these terrorists are as racist hatemongerers and project your bigotry onto them.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Well obviously not all Arabs love to live in filth, and not all Arabs love to bomb.

And not all Arabs who love to live in filth love to bomb, and not all Arabs who love to bomb also love to live in filth.

But when we get to the intersection of 1) Arabs

Who 2) Love to live in filth, and

3) Love to bomb...

I think that’s who Ben Shapiro is talking about.

That’s not all of them, it’s just the intersection of those statistical/demographical cohorts.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p0quM2txQwg

 

[Spartanmack]

When you respond to a question about wealth differences with "it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture" you are denying that bias and racism have an impact on wealth.

I'm not going to get into another pedantic argument about the meaning of everything and nothing and ignore the use of those terms as overstatement/exaggeration. Drawing the conclusion over 1:22 from a nearly 2 hour debate and ignoring literally everything he's said about bias and racism. It's disingenuous. Even if you're right and he's saying it has zero affect on the wealth gap, that's not racist. You can be wrong (he's not) and not be racist - this is a concept that's difficult (seemingly impossible) for some posters to grasp. The overwhelming driver of income inequality is cultural, not racial.

Did you watch the video where he talks about his position on culture and race? Here's another:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yDHK0x2j80

Here's another where he addresses a question about bias:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukkV4rwECTI

Does he sound like a racist? I mean to a reasonable person. I know it sounds like racism to MC.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm not going to get into another pedantic argument about the meaning of everything and nothing and ignore the use of those terms as overstatement/exaggeration. Drawing the conclusion over 1:22 from a nearly 2 hour debate and ignoring literally everything he's said about bias and racism. It's disingenuous. Even if you're right and he's saying it has zero affect on the wealth gap, that's not racist. You can be wrong (he's not) and not be racist - this is a concept that's difficult (seemingly impossible) for some posters to grasp. The overwhelming driver of income inequality is cultural, not racial.

Did you watch the video where he talks about his position on culture and race? Here's another:



Here's another where he addresses a question about bias:



Does he sound like a racist? I mean to a reasonable person. I know it sounds like racism to MC.

I'm not being picky about "everything" or "nothing". Of course I'm talking about whether or not it's significant, or a driver, and not getting technical about absolutes. We've been over this so much, it's insane that you'd think that.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm not being picky about "everything" or "nothing". Of course I'm talking about whether or not it's significant, or a driver, and not getting technical about absolutes. We've been over this so much, it's insane that you'd think that.

You're getting technical about absolutes to say what someone else thinks. I haven't said anything about your position on wealth distribution, just your opinion of someone else's opinion.

Again, the point is, holding those positions isn't racist just because mc disagrees with it. You clearly don't agree with it either, but you haven't said whether or not you think Shapiro is a bigot and I want to be clear that I'm not in any way claiming you've made that argument.

 

[Gulo Blue]

You're getting technical about absolutes to say what someone else thinks. I haven't said anything about your position on wealth distribution, just your opinion of someone else's opinion.

Again, the point is, holding those positions isn't racist just because mc disagrees with it. You clearly don't agree with it either, but you haven't said whether or not you think Shapiro is a bigot and I want to be clear that I'm not in any way claiming you've made that argument.

You said he acknowledges bias and racism. I'm saying he denies the financial impact of bias and racism. Because he does. He thinks culture is the primary driver. So do you. We've been over it.


Nothing technical or hinging on absolutes about it.


I think wealth is the primary driver and I don't think it's too difficult to understand why the 'death by 1000 cuts' associated with bias leads to such a dramatic difference in wealth if you can understand compounding interest and how a small difference in a growth rate can have a big effect over time.

 

[Michchamp]

You said he acknowledges bias and racism. I'm saying he denies the financial impact of bias and racism. Because he does. He thinks culture is the primary driver. So do you. We've been over it.


Nothing technical or hinging on absolutes about it.


I think wealth is the primary driver and I don't think it's too difficult to understand why the 'death by 1000 cuts' associated with bias leads to such a dramatic difference in wealth if you can understand compounding interest and how a small difference in a growth rate can have a big effect over time.

1,000 cuts. also being only a couple generations removed from SLAVERY, and only a generation, if that, from Jim Crow laws, and not removed at all from mortgage loan redlining. But yeah, then there are all the little things...

 

[Michchamp]

...

Still waiting for you to make the case that the video is selectively edited. This is ....

Just keep waiting, asshole.

 

[Spartanmack]

You said he acknowledges bias and racism. I'm saying he denies the financial impact of bias and racism. Because he does. He thinks culture is the primary driver. So do you. We've been over it.


Nothing technical or hinging on absolutes about it.


I think wealth is the primary driver and I don't think it's too difficult to understand why the 'death by 1000 cuts' associated with bias leads to such a dramatic difference in wealth if you can understand compounding interest and how a small difference in a growth rate can have a big effect over time.

I think it's even easier to see how the massive expansion of welfare, the destruction of the family and creating a culture of victimhood has left us with a permanent underclass of poor Americans (and Democrat voters). These policies have disproportionately affected minority groups. You need to jump through a thousand hoops and take some giant leaps to link that to racism, let alone conclude that it's the primary driver.

 

[Spartanmack]

1,000 cuts. also being only a couple generations removed from SLAVERY, and only a generation, if that, from Jim Crow laws, and not removed at all from mortgage loan redlining. But yeah, then there are all the little things...

a couple generations is about 40 years. January 31st will be the 154th anniversary of the signing of the 13th Amendment. I'm pretty sure the amendment became effective before 1979. Mortgage redlining is also a thing of the past. In fact, in 2008 we had a financial crisis (you may have heard something about it) that was caused in large part by Democratic policy that encouraged banks to create mortgage products tailored to high risk borrowers. A big part of the motivation for this action by Democrats in the government was to increase homeownership in urban America. Many of those loans were part of the subprime mortgage market that experienced massive defaults when interest rates reset.